By Kam Zarrabi, Intellectual Discourse
It is deja vu all over again!
The goal posts have been moved back once again and the supposed deadline for
an Israeli preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear sites is now sometime after the
presidential elections and before the end of this year.
One of many logical questions that comes to mind is why did Israel not carry
out this preemptive attack on Iran all those other times it threatened to do so.
How many times did our investigative journalists and American and Israeli media
and even some Administration officials warn us, often with predicted deadlines,
about the imminence of this Israeli attack?
Could the answer be in the logic that people, countries and empires tend to
do whatever is perceived to be to their advantage, and refrain from taking
actions that might potentially lead to their demise? And, when was the last time
a dominant regional or global power decided not to pursue its perceived best
interests for the sake of fairness or humanitarian concerns? The only logical
concern in such cases is ensuring that the expected benefits are not outweighed
by the costs of achieving the desired objectives; it is really that simple, a
I have written volumes in the past about Israel's regional agendas, as
influenced and driven by its internal socioeconomic dilemmas, principally with
regard to the occupied territories and the Palestinian issues, and contingent on
its vital linkage to America's economic, military and diplomatic might.
To ensure that its regional agendas, its perceived interests and future
prospects continue to have the full backing of the world's most powerful empire,
Israel has spared no effort in fortifying its influence on America's foreign
policy apparatus, the Congress and the White House, and above all, the American
public's mindset through the mass media. Could the Jewish state be faulted for
As the presidential elections approach, among the most crucial issues to be
debated between President Obama and his challenger, Mitt Romney, are the two
domestic issues of the economy and health care, plus the one foreign policy
issue regarding the Middle East. Enough has been said and written about the fact
that, without the support of the pro-Zionist and pro-Israel centers of
influence, no candidate, whether running for a congressional seat or the
presidency of the United States, would have a chance to succeed. These centers
of power can make or break any candidate's chances of success, as amply
demonstrated in the past. Money and publicity, which means access to the mass
media, are the two determining factors in any politically vital battleground.
Our bipartisan adoration and unequivocal support of Israel and Zionist agendas
leaves little doubt as to who or what forces influence America's foreign
It is, therefore, no surprise that Mr. Romney has just announced that he is
to make his pilgrimage to Israel and meet with the Israeli Prime Minister,
Netanyahu, this summer. He, as well as other former hopefuls and current Romney
supporters, have been relentless in accusing the current Administration of not
being tough enough in dealing with Israel's chief antagonist in the region,
The Obama camp, meanwhile, has had no option but to continue to ratchet up
the tension against the Islamic Republic through additional sanctions and
pressures on its European allies to do the same. In this crucial elections year
and in the face of the well-indoctrinated American public opinion, having done
otherwise would be committing political suicide.
A good example of how the American mass media continue to "manage" the public
mindset regarding the "designated enemy", Iran, is the recent reportage on
Iran's military exercises that displayed various medium and long range missiles.
The display of Iranian missiles capabilities and the statements of Iran's
military commanders were portrayed as "threats" to American bases and the naval
forces in the region, as well as to Israel. In other words, the gist of the
media reporting was that the Iranians are now exhibiting their missile
technology and threatening American forces and military bases in the Middle
East, with the capability of hitting Israeli targets. What was missing in this
media frenzy was the clear statements by
the Iranians that
those exercises were to demonstrate Iran's retaliatory capabilities in
case of an American or Israeli attack on Iran. Is it logical to expect a
nation under threats of military attack to refrain from attempting to defend
In the meantime, observers and analysts of the Iranian dilemma continue to
raise many valid points as to the very illegality of
the economic sanctions against Iran, Iran's legal rights to nuclear enrichment,
aspects of the sanctions, the potential of approaching a flashpoint,
One of the best critical analyses of the US/Iran issues was a piece by
Pat Buchanan on
the antiwar.com website.
Mr. Buchanan's article, Why this Obsession With Iran?, does
touch on a very important, yet often ignored point: Pakistan. More about that
Mr. Buchanan, like most other analysts, is critical of the Administration on
several grounds: He asks why no diplomatic effort was initiated to break the
impasse with Iran, as was so effectively done in 1959, when President Eisenhower
invited Nikita Khrushchev to the United States for 10 days of touring and talks,
or in 1972, when Richard Nixon traveled to Beijing to toast and talk with
Chairman Mao. He presents solid arguments against the allegations that Iran is
in the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and regards America's paranoid militarization
of the Persian Gulf unnecessary and dangerous.
Buchanan, as well as other well-intentioned writers and analysts, among the
most qualified of them I would name Hillary and Flynt Leverett of the website, Race
for Iran.com, seem to base their critiques on of the two following
assumptions: Either the Administration officials, meaning the White House and
the State Department, are ignorant of the facts on the ground and do not know
what is best for America's strategic interests in the Middle East; or, they are
knowingly and deliberately taking this country in a wrong and dangerous path
with dire consequences. The second alternative sounds too conspiratorial, even
seditious, to be considered seriously.
This leaves us with the assumption that our foreign policy apparatus in
Washington is in the hands of incompetent fools who simply don't know better!
But, is this a realistic assessment? I certainly do not believe so. Instead, it
is much more logical to maintain that the White House, the State Department, as
well as our various intelligence services are well aware of the facts, and there
is very little if anything that we critics could teach them that they don't
already know. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to assume that, knowing the facts,
the Administration would be unwilling to find effective ways to serve America's
best strategic interests in the Middle East.
With the above points in mind, we can only reach one conclusion: the American
government is suffering from a systemic paralysis that prevents it from doing
the right thing, namely pursuing America's best national interests.
What are the roots or sources of this systemic paralysis? To solve this
riddle we must look at the centers of power and influence that benefit from
preventing or hampering efforts to follow the proper course of action.
We could certainly point to the proverbial military/industrial complex that
thrives on global unrest and concerns, real or concocted, over national
security. We could also point to the naive evangelical zealots whose blind
passion for religious redemption recognizes no limit.
But by far the greatest culprit is the pro-Zionism monster that feeds on
public sympathy generated by decades of successful public relations campaigns
and the control of the American media, hence stranglehold over the United States
Congress and the White House.
We cannot reasonable blame the Jewish state for attempting to benefit from
its parasitic symbiosis with the United States. After years of this parasite and
host relationship, extricating the parasite is not easy and could even prove
fatal to the host.
The portrayal of Israel in the American mindset as a beacon of Western values
and democracy and as a vital asset for serving America's interests in the Middle
East has always been enhanced when Israel is viewed as a friend and ally under
the threat of annihilation by hostile, uncivilized entities in the region. For
this portrayal to serve its purpose, some believable evil power must be found or
"designated" to play the role of the villain. Fortunately for Israel, Iran has
been playing that role quite convincingly to this point.
Even though it defies logic to think that Iran would somehow benefit from
attacking Israel with or without a nuclear arsenal, something that the American
government and the Israelis, as well as the Iranians, are well aware of, most
Americans have been buying into this fallacy.
This macabre charade has had to continue to serve its intended purpose at the
expense of Iranian people's suffering and America's true national interests,
until such time that another suitable pariah could be found to take up the role
of the "existential" threat to Israel.
As I have mentioned several times in the past, and as Pat Buchanan has
pointed to in his article sited above, Pakistan is the logical replacement for
Iran as not just another designated enemy to Israel and indeed to Western
interests, but as a much more realistic danger to regional peace and security.
As I have maintained repeatedly, neither the United States, nor Israel, and
certainly not Iran would like to escalate the current tensions to a level that
military hostilities might break out. Even though the current tensions seem to
be approaching a flashpoint, there are plenty of signals that all parties are
trying to avoid that confrontation.
It is for the above reasons that I predict that an easing of the sanctions
and hostile Western rhetoric against Iran is in the books once we hurdle the
American presidential elections, perhaps by mid 2013. Israel will have its
elections this year, and the final term of the Iranian president, the man whom
the Israelis have maliciously depicted as a second Hitler, even though he had no
power over Iran's military or foreign policy, will also be over by next July.
As I have said before, if another actual military confrontation could have
proved beneficial for the United States or Israel, no concern over humanitarian
values or the violation of international law would have prevented an attack on
Iran. History has proven that fact.
Other recent articles by Kam Zarrabi:
Iran Back In Context
Author: Kambiz Zarrabi
Paperback: 144 pages
Publisher: Xlibris, Corp. (October 14, 2011)
Kamran Zarrabi has recently completed writing his memoirs of his 2011 trip to Iran. The manuscript called "Iran, Back in Context" also contains the accounts of several interviews with a broad cross section of people, photographs, and details of travels to remote areas of the country.
... Payvand News - 07/09/12 ... --